Living With a Naturalistic Worldview

Filed under: Apologetics, Philosophy — Barry Carey at 5:33 pm on Wednesday, June 28, 2006

The problem with naturalism, the belief that nature is all there is, is that we cannot live with the beliefs it entails. One can mentally assent to a belief that there is nothing beyond the natural world, however, he finds it necessary to live as if his belief is not true.

Marvin Minsky once said that the human mind is nothing but a “three-pound computer made of meat”. However, in his book The Society of Mind, he states:

The physical world provides no room for freedom of will…That concept is essential to our models of the mental realm. Too much of our psychology is based on it for us to ever give it up. We’re virtually forced to maintain that belief, even though we know it’s false.

Being made in the image of God, human beings inescapably believe in things like human freedom, even though they “know” they are false.

Philosopher John Searle said:

We can’t give up our conviction of our own freedom, even though there is no ground for it.

At least, there is no ground for it in a naturalistic or materialistic worldview. The things that mean the most in life are nothing but useful fiction, from that viewpoint. Francis Schaeffer argues that modern thinkers often take a “leap of faith” into the realm of values, dignity, meaning, and significance. Intellectually they embrace naturalism. However, because that philosophy does not fit their real-life experience, they are forced to affirm a contradictory set of ideas like moral freedom and human dignity, even though these things have no basis in within their own intellecutal framework.

A Christian worldview, on the other hand, enables one to have a coherent philosophy of life, in which he does not have to make a blind “leap” into meaning when he knows there is none.

3 Comments »

Comment by Kevin Winters

June 28, 2006 @ 7:21 pm

What if mind and freedom are, in fact, part of the natural world, as it is in panpsychism/panexperientialism? Yes, then it is not naturalism as currently understood, but it shares its essence: we do not need supernatural beings for there to be mind and freedom.

Comment by Chris

June 29, 2006 @ 1:15 am

I was going to say what Kevin already said, so I’ll just add that it seems pretty premature to dismiss the possibility of freedom in a naturalist world view, because we just don’t know enough about nature.

Comment by Barry Carey

June 29, 2006 @ 1:01 pm

Chris, Just what might be the basis for freedom in a naturalistic worldview? The fact that there is none is not just an assertion by me, but it attested to by many naturalists (as quoted in the post). I’m not sure what is premature about that assertion. There just is no room for freedom if nature is all there is.

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>